Science > Abortion > Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
05 Nov 2006 09:52:33 PM |
| Object: |
Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
Where will this facination with killing babies end with these so called
'pro-choice' lunatics? Are toddlers next on the list? How about teenagers?
Life begins at conception and should be treated sacred as such.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article1956609.ece
Doctors are urging health regulators to consider allowing the "active
euthanasia" of severely disabled newborn babies.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology has put forward the
option of permitting mercy killings of the sickest infants to a review of
medical ethics.
It says "active euthanasia" should be considered for the overall benefit of
families who would otherwise suffer years of emotional and financial
suffering.
Deliberate action to end infants' lives may also reduce the number of late
abortions, since it would allow women the chance to decide whether their
disabled child should live.
"A very disabled child can mean a disabled family. If life-shortening and
deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an
impact on obstetric decision-making," the college writes in a submission to
the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
"We would like the working party to think more radically about
non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests
test, and active euthanasia, as they are ways of widening the management
options available to the sickest of newborns."
--
--
----------
J Yöung
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
05 Nov 2006 10:35:37 PM |
|
|
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Where will this facination with killing babies end
When you murderous fanatics stop killing babies.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "God Doesnt Exist" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
06 Nov 2006 07:49:52 PM |
|
|
J Young said:
Where will this facination with killing babies end with these so called
'pro-choice' lunatics? Are toddlers next on the list? How about teenagers?
Life begins at conception and should be treated sacred as such.
Another superstitious christofascist whacko spews more lies for his gullible
friends.
Why do you never cry over the real children (not zygotes) who are massacred by
the right wing Christofascist politicians and their war machines you so
faithfully support? Why do you never whines and complain about starving
children in third world countries? Instead of withholding food and medicine in
exchange for ludicrous abstinence sschemes
How many more anti-choice leaders are perverts and love to have sex with
animals? For every one who admits it, surely there are dozens hiding the fact.
"anti-abortion extremist Neal Horsley was a guest on The Alan
Colmes Show, a FOX News radio program. The topic was an interesting one -
whether or not an internet service provider should allow Horsley to post the
names of abortion doctors on his website. Horsley does that as a way of
targeting them and one doctor has been killed. In the course of the
interview, however, Colmes asked Horsley about his background, including a
statement that he had admitted to engaging in homosexual and bestiality sex.
At first, Horsley laughed and said, "Just because it's printed in the media,
people jump to believe it."
"Is it true?" Colmes asked.
"Hey, Alan, if you want to accuse me of having sex when I was a fool, I did
everything that crossed my mind that looked like I..."
AC: "You had sex with animals?"
NH: "Absolutely. I was a fool. When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your
first girlfriend is a mule."
AC: "I'm not so sure that that is so."
NH: "You didn't grow up on a farm in Georgia, did you?"
AC: "Are you suggesting that everybody who grows up on a farm in Georgia has
a mule as a girlfriend?"
NH: It has historically been the case. You people are so far removed from
the reality... Welcome to domestic life on the farm..."
Colmes said he thought there were a lot of people in the audience who grew
up on farms, are living on farms now, raising kids on farms and "and I don't
think they are dating Elsie right now. You know what I'm saying?"
Horsley said, "You experiment with anything that moves when you are growing
up sexually. You're naive. You know better than that... If it's warm and
it's damp and it vibrates you might in fact have sex with it."
In addition to Horsley, Colmes has recently interviewed Randall Terry
another radical anti-abortionist and anti-gay activist. In the middle of an
otherwise serious interview, Terry began joking - apropos of nothing - that
he and Colmes were ex-lovers.
Another extremist interviewed by Colmes not too long ago was Rev. Fred
Phelps who stated on the show that he thought the death penalty should be
given for those who engage in "sodomy." When Colmes asked Phelps if he had
ever engaged in gay sex, Phelps blustered but never said no.
Hmm, I'm beginning to sense a pattern here. Come to think of it, Ann Coulter
is reputed to have an unusually, er, wide-ranging sex life, too, though as
far as I know it's just confined to men. Still, it doesn't exactly match the
profile of an ultra-conservative.
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/06/bizarre_sex_habits_of_the_extreme...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
06 Nov 2006 12:39:33 AM |
|
|
J Young a =E9crit :
Where will this facination with killing babies
No babies are being killed, stop lying.
end with these so called
'pro-choice' lunatics? Are toddlers next on the list? How about teenagers?
I personally would suggest nazi turds...
Life begins at conception and should be treated sacred as such.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article1956609.ece
Doctors are urging health regulators to consider allowing the "active
euthanasia" of severely disabled newborn babies.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology has put forward the
option of permitting mercy killings of the sickest infants to a review of
medical ethics.
It says "active euthanasia" should be considered for the overall benefit =
of
families who would otherwise suffer years of emotional and financial
suffering.
Deliberate action to end infants' lives may also reduce the number of late
abortions, since it would allow women the chance to decide whether their
disabled child should live.
"A very disabled child can mean a disabled family. If life-shortening and
deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have =
an
impact on obstetric decision-making," the college writes in a submission =
to
the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
"We would like the working party to think more radically about
non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests
test, and active euthanasia, as they are ways of widening the management
options available to the sickest of newborns."
=20
=20
=20
--=20
--=20
----------
=20
J Y=F6ung
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ABarlow" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
06 Nov 2006 03:03:14 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Life begins at conception and should be treated sacred as such.
Well, that is actually open to a lot more interpretation than you would
think. Conception as such doesn't even create a new cell; the "egg"
cell is already there. But even still, it is just a cell. Your body has
about a trillion of them, and they're dying every second, but that
isn't a problem. Exactly when the particular cell of interest turns
into a being of some significance is a little more tricky. For those of
you who are biblically minded, will probably say that life begins when
the embryo/zygote/fetus reaches about 18 days--the point in which it is
filled with blood, because according to the Bible, it is blood that
confers life. A strict bioethicist would probably be more inclined to
say that the figure is a week or two later, when the nervous system
becomes functional, since that is the measuring stick they use to
determine life. Naturally, the feminists and their cohorts argue that
life begins the moment the baby exists the woman's body.
Doctors are urging health regulators to consider allowing the "active
euthanasia" of severely disabled newborn babies.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology has put forward the
option of permitting mercy killings of the sickest infants to a review of
medical ethics.
It says "active euthanasia" should be considered for the overall benefit =
of
families who would otherwise suffer years of emotional and financial
suffering.
I think that this one will have trouble getting through. Even if the
RCOG gives this the green light, they themselves don't have the power
to subvert the legal rights of those infants. It would never stand up
in court.
Deliberate action to end infants' lives may also reduce the number
of late
abortions, since it would allow women the chance to decide whether their
disabled child should live.
"A very disabled child can mean a disabled family. If life-shortening and
deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have =
an
impact on obstetric decision-making," the college writes in a submission =
to
the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
I think this must be a joke.
"We would like the working party to think more radically about
non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests
test, and active euthanasia, as they are ways of widening the management
options available to the sickest of newborns."
"Management options" that's a lovely euphemism. I don't see how what
they're proposing is any different than wrapping the baby up and
throwing it in a dumpster though.
A=2E
=20
=20
--=20
--=20
----------
=20
J Y=F6ung
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
06 Nov 2006 11:55:43 AM |
|
|
On 6 Nov 2006 01:03:14 -0800, "ABarlow"
<impartially_insane@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, that is actually open to a lot more interpretation than you would
think. Conception as such doesn't even create a new cell; the "egg"
cell is already there. But even still, it is just a cell. Your body has
about a trillion of them, and they're dying every second, but that
isn't a problem. Exactly when the particular cell of interest turns
into a being of some significance is a little more tricky. For those of
you who are biblically minded, will probably say that life begins when
the embryo/zygote/fetus reaches about 18 days--the point in which it is
filled with blood, because according to the Bible, it is blood that
confers life. A strict bioethicist would probably be more inclined to
say that the figure is a week or two later, when the nervous system
becomes functional, since that is the measuring stick they use to
determine life. Naturally, the feminists and their cohorts argue that
life begins the moment the baby exists the woman's body.
And a Biblical literalist would say that none of that matters, because
God says that abortion isn't concerned with the length of gestation.
(Yep, far from prohibiting it, the Bible PRESCRIBES abortion.)
Christians pull all sorts of verses out of the Bible to show how God
is against abortion, but they completely ignore the ONLY part of the
Bible that addresses intentional abortion directly - because it
totally destroys their claim that killing the fetus is always wrong -
or even that it's only allowable to save the mother's life or health.
the Bible leaves the decision COMPLETELY to the FATHER.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Curt" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
07 Nov 2006 12:56:08 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:motuk2p1v7ucl16jvd76p4oeim64usl192@4ax.com...
On 6 Nov 2006 01:03:14 -0800, "ABarlow"
<impartially_insane@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, that is actually open to a lot more interpretation than you would
think. Conception as such doesn't even create a new cell; the "egg"
cell is already there. But even still, it is just a cell. Your body has
about a trillion of them, and they're dying every second, but that
isn't a problem. Exactly when the particular cell of interest turns
into a being of some significance is a little more tricky. For those of
you who are biblically minded, will probably say that life begins when
the embryo/zygote/fetus reaches about 18 days--the point in which it is
filled with blood, because according to the Bible, it is blood that
confers life. A strict bioethicist would probably be more inclined to
say that the figure is a week or two later, when the nervous system
becomes functional, since that is the measuring stick they use to
determine life. Naturally, the feminists and their cohorts argue that
life begins the moment the baby exists the woman's body.
And a Biblical literalist would say that none of that matters, because
God says that abortion isn't concerned with the length of gestation.
(Yep, far from prohibiting it, the Bible PRESCRIBES abortion.)
Christians pull all sorts of verses out of the Bible to show how God
is against abortion, but they completely ignore the ONLY part of the
Bible that addresses intentional abortion directly - because it
totally destroys their claim that killing the fetus is always wrong -
or even that it's only allowable to save the mother's life or health.
the Bible leaves the decision COMPLETELY to the FATHER.
Now that's interesting. Where did you find that? I only found the one that
if two men strive and one knocketh a woman and she loseth her fetus, the men
have to pay a fine to the father. Or something like that. I haven't run
across anything about intentional abortion at all. And I'm sure the
procedure was known in those days. Although they probably ate something
horrible to accomplish it, or something.
Curt
.
|
|
|
| User: "willow" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
07 Nov 2006 06:24:38 PM |
|
|
Curt wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:motuk2p1v7ucl16jvd76p4oeim64usl192@4ax.com...
On 6 Nov 2006 01:03:14 -0800, "ABarlow"
<impartially_insane@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, that is actually open to a lot more interpretation than you would
think. Conception as such doesn't even create a new cell; the "egg"
cell is already there. But even still, it is just a cell. Your body has
about a trillion of them, and they're dying every second, but that
isn't a problem. Exactly when the particular cell of interest turns
into a being of some significance is a little more tricky. For those of
you who are biblically minded, will probably say that life begins when
the embryo/zygote/fetus reaches about 18 days--the point in which it is
filled with blood, because according to the Bible, it is blood that
confers life. A strict bioethicist would probably be more inclined to
say that the figure is a week or two later, when the nervous system
becomes functional, since that is the measuring stick they use to
determine life. Naturally, the feminists and their cohorts argue that
life begins the moment the baby exists the woman's body.
And a Biblical literalist would say that none of that matters, because
God says that abortion isn't concerned with the length of gestation.
(Yep, far from prohibiting it, the Bible PRESCRIBES abortion.)
Christians pull all sorts of verses out of the Bible to show how God
is against abortion, but they completely ignore the ONLY part of the
Bible that addresses intentional abortion directly - because it
totally destroys their claim that killing the fetus is always wrong -
or even that it's only allowable to save the mother's life or health.
the Bible leaves the decision COMPLETELY to the FATHER.
Now that's interesting. Where did you find that?
Numbers 5:11-31
I only found the one that
if two men strive and one knocketh a woman and she loseth her fetus, the men
have to pay a fine to the father. Or something like that. I haven't run
across anything about intentional abortion at all. And I'm sure the
procedure was known in those days. Although they probably ate something
horrible to accomplish it, or something.
Curt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Curt" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
07 Nov 2006 07:55:47 PM |
|
|
"willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1162945478.928067.36090@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Curt wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:motuk2p1v7ucl16jvd76p4oeim64usl192@4ax.com...
On 6 Nov 2006 01:03:14 -0800, "ABarlow"
<impartially_insane@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, that is actually open to a lot more interpretation than you
would
think. Conception as such doesn't even create a new cell; the "egg"
cell is already there. But even still, it is just a cell. Your body
has
about a trillion of them, and they're dying every second, but that
isn't a problem. Exactly when the particular cell of interest turns
into a being of some significance is a little more tricky. For those
of
you who are biblically minded, will probably say that life begins
when
the embryo/zygote/fetus reaches about 18 days--the point in which it
is
filled with blood, because according to the Bible, it is blood that
confers life. A strict bioethicist would probably be more inclined to
say that the figure is a week or two later, when the nervous system
becomes functional, since that is the measuring stick they use to
determine life. Naturally, the feminists and their cohorts argue that
life begins the moment the baby exists the woman's body.
And a Biblical literalist would say that none of that matters, because
God says that abortion isn't concerned with the length of gestation.
(Yep, far from prohibiting it, the Bible PRESCRIBES abortion.)
Christians pull all sorts of verses out of the Bible to show how God
is against abortion, but they completely ignore the ONLY part of the
Bible that addresses intentional abortion directly - because it
totally destroys their claim that killing the fetus is always wrong -
or even that it's only allowable to save the mother's life or health.
the Bible leaves the decision COMPLETELY to the FATHER.
Now that's interesting. Where did you find that?
Numbers 5:11-31
Hmmmm. I kinda find it a stretch to turn that into a biblical abortion
ritual. But okay.
I like mine better.
I only found the one that
if two men strive and one knocketh a woman and she loseth her fetus, the
men
have to pay a fine to the father. Or something like that. I haven't run
across anything about intentional abortion at all. And I'm sure the
procedure was known in those days. Although they probably ate something
horrible to accomplish it, or something.
Curt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
08 Nov 2006 10:15:02 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 17:55:47 -0800, "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
"willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1162945478.928067.36090@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Now that's interesting. Where did you find that?
Numbers 5:11-31
Hmmmm. I kinda find it a stretch to turn that into a biblical abortion
ritual.
It causes abortion and it's called for in your Bible, so evidently
your Bible doesn't consider causing an abortion wrong.
Any other reason why you want to prevent OTHER women from getting
abortions if they want them? You can't fall back on your Bible now
without looking a bit desperate.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
- Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
07 Nov 2006 08:52:50 PM |
|
|
On 7 Nov 2006 16:24:38 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Numbers 5:11-31
So you KNOW that your Bible CONDONES abortion, yet you call anyone not
opposed to it names?
Shall we count the number of sins you committed?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "perseus" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
07 Nov 2006 09:53:41 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 7 Nov 2006 16:24:38 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Numbers 5:11-31
So you KNOW that your Bible CONDONES abortion,
Wotta moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
07 Nov 2006 10:49:05 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 03:53:41 GMT, perseus <gor@gon.med> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 7 Nov 2006 16:24:38 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Numbers 5:11-31
So you KNOW that your Bible CONDONES abortion,
Wotta moron.
Yes, you are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "perseus" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
08 Nov 2006 12:01:39 AM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 03:53:41 GMT, perseus <gor@gon.med> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 7 Nov 2006 16:24:38 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Numbers 5:11-31
So you KNOW that your Bible CONDONES abortion,
Wotta moron.
Yes,
And you also.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Scratch" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
10 Nov 2006 04:56:52 PM |
|
|
perseus wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 7 Nov 2006 16:24:38 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Numbers 5:11-31
So you KNOW that your Bible CONDONES abortion,
Wotta moron.
Indeed!
--
“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and then you shall
find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the
sword the faith he preached.”
Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "willow" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
08 Nov 2006 11:10:52 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 7 Nov 2006 16:24:38 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Numbers 5:11-31
So you KNOW that your Bible CONDONES abortion, yet you call anyone not
opposed to it names?
I agree with Curt, using Num. 5:11-31 is a stretch. I just
cited Book, chapter and verses for him because you didn't
or couldn't.
Shall we count the number of sins you committed?
If you count your own, you will find little or no time to
enumerate mine, so put down your stones.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
08 Nov 2006 02:02:55 PM |
|
|
On 8 Nov 2006 09:10:52 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 7 Nov 2006 16:24:38 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Numbers 5:11-31
So you KNOW that your Bible CONDONES abortion, yet you call anyone not
opposed to it names?
I agree with Curt, using Num. 5:11-31 is a stretch. I just
cited Book, chapter and verses for him because you didn't
or couldn't.
I chose not to and it's not, unless you like to "interpret" your Bible
to say whatever you want it to say - which would make you a Christian.
Shall we count the number of sins you committed?
If you count your own
I'm not Christian - I don't believe in your concept of sin.
so put down your stones.
Or your "cast the first stone".
You REALLY don't get it, do you. NOT Christian isn't a variety of
Christian. To a non-Christian your Bible and a John Grisham novel
carry the same weight - they're both works of fiction. (And Grisham
is a MUCH better author.)
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "willow" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
08 Nov 2006 04:11:50 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 8 Nov 2006 09:10:52 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 7 Nov 2006 16:24:38 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Numbers 5:11-31
So you KNOW that your Bible CONDONES abortion, yet you call anyone not
opposed to it names?
I agree with Curt, using Num. 5:11-31 is a stretch. I just
cited Book, chapter and verses for him because you didn't
or couldn't.
I chose not to and it's not, unless you like to "interpret" your Bible
to say whatever you want it to say - which would make you a Christian.
Your pathetic attempt to interpret the Bible is arrogant in the
extreme.
The accused woman stands before the Lord, and after she
drinks the mixture, if it is determined that she is guilty of
adultery, it is the Lord, who causes her thigh to rot and
her belly/womb to swell. Everything is done in accordance
with the Lord's instructions.
That punishment for ADULTERY is a far cry from a woman
of today, who can get an abortion for any reason whatsoever,
married or unmarried. It's a far cry from going to a priest,
and standing before the Lord, and receiving his justice, and
going to an abortionist, mostly for the sake of convenience,
and having the PREBORN, burned, ripped up and out, or partially
delivered, then stabbed at the base of the skull, and having
his brains sucked out.
Do you understand? No, of course not.
Shall we count the number of sins you committed?
If you count your own
I'm not Christian - I don't believe in your concept of sin.
so put down your stones.
Or your "cast the first stone".
NOT Christian isn't a variety of
Christian.
Do you get some peculiar high from stating the obvious?
To a non-Christian your Bible and a John Grisham novel
carry the same weight - they're both works of fiction. (And Grisham
is a MUCH better author.)
Your depravity is a witness to the fact that you do indeed believe your
above prattle.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
08 Nov 2006 06:49:07 PM |
|
|
On 8 Nov 2006 14:11:50 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 8 Nov 2006 09:10:52 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 7 Nov 2006 16:24:38 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Numbers 5:11-31
So you KNOW that your Bible CONDONES abortion, yet you call anyone not
opposed to it names?
I agree with Curt, using Num. 5:11-31 is a stretch. I just
cited Book, chapter and verses for him because you didn't
or couldn't.
I chose not to and it's not, unless you like to "interpret" your Bible
to say whatever you want it to say - which would make you a Christian.
Your pathetic attempt to interpret the Bible
No interpretation needed - that's YOUR group's hobby. I can read
words and accept what they say with no need to "interpret" them to
mean something other than what they say.
is arrogant in the extreme.
What's arrogant is your pretense that you're a sane human adult. You
miss on all three counts.
The accused woman stands before the Lord, and after she
drinks the mixture, if it is determined that she is guilty of
adultery
By your god killing any fetus she may be carrying.
it is the Lord, who causes her thigh to rot and
her belly/womb to swell.
And causes her to lose any fetus that may be growing inside her belly.
In other words, just so maybe it sinks into that stone skull of yours,
HE DOESN'T FORBID ABORTION, HE CAUSES IT!
Everything is done in accordance with the Lord's instructions.
So your god's instructions DON'T forbid abortions, they CONDONE THEM,
but only on the condition that THE MAN WANTS THEM! Moron. You just
destroyed BOTH of your arguments.
That punishment for ADULTERY is a far cry from a woman
of today, who can get an abortion for any reason whatsoever,
married or unmarried. It's a far cry from going to a priest,
and standing before the Lord, and receiving his justice, and
going to an abortionist, mostly for the sake of convenience,
and having the PREBORN, burned, ripped up and out, or partially
delivered, then stabbed at the base of the skull, and having
his brains sucked out.
And it shows that the argument that Christianity, or Christianity's
Bible, forbids abortion is just something that Christians made up.
Do you understand?
Yes, I understand that Christians have made up some Biblical ban on
abortion that's CONTRADICTED by the Bible.
NOT Christian isn't a variety of Christian.
Do you get some peculiar high from stating the obvious?
It's evidently not that obvious to you until I point it out a few
times, and even then you don't have the attention span to remember it
past the end of the sentence.
To a non-Christian your Bible and a John Grisham novel
carry the same weight - they're both works of fiction. (And Grisham
is a MUCH better author.)
Your depravity is a witness to the fact that you do indeed believe your
above prattle.
And your moronicity is witnessed by the fact that you STILL believe
that your Bible is anything more than a collection of fairy tales to
anyone but a Christian, even AFTER you said that the fact that it
isn't is obvious. Or are you just Lying for Jeebus?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world
insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "willow" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
09 Nov 2006 06:36:55 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 8 Nov 2006 14:11:50 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 8 Nov 2006 09:10:52 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 7 Nov 2006 16:24:38 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Numbers 5:11-31
So you KNOW that your Bible CONDONES abortion, yet you call anyone not
opposed to it names?
I agree with Curt, using Num. 5:11-31 is a stretch. I just
cited Book, chapter and verses for him because you didn't
or couldn't.
I chose not to and it's not, unless you like to "interpret" your Bible
to say whatever you want it to say - which would make you a Christian.
Your pathetic attempt to interpret the Bible
No interpretation needed - that's YOUR group's hobby. I can read
words and accept what they say with no need to "interpret" them to
mean something other than what they say.
And spinning scripture to suit your group's evil agenda is yours.
Your understanding is darkened because you are an unbeliever
and, as such, you lack spiritual discernment. You are simply a
natural man with a souless, worldly view of scripture.
is arrogant in the extreme.
What's arrogant is your pretense that you're a sane human adult. You
miss on all three counts.
What's arrogant is your pretense that you, a worldly, natural man, are
qualified to explain spiritual things.
The accused woman stands before the Lord, and after she
drinks the mixture, if it is determined that she is guilty of
adultery
By your god killing any fetus she may be carrying.
it is the Lord, who causes her thigh to rot and
her belly/womb to swell.
And causes her to lose any fetus that may be growing inside her belly.
That does not give us a license to usurp his authority, and play God.
In other words, just so maybe it sinks into that stone skull of yours,
HE DOESN'T FORBID ABORTION, HE CAUSES IT!
All souls are his. He is God, and we are not.
Everything is done in accordance with the Lord's instructions.
So your god's instructions DON'T forbid abortions, they CONDONE THEM,
but only on the condition that THE MAN WANTS THEM! Moron. You just
destroyed BOTH of your arguments.
No, Al, this is not abortion on demand as your diseased mind would
have it. The man had to suspect his wife of unfaithfulness, and she
had to be proven guility of same. God knew if she was innocent or
guilty of her husband's accusation. If guilty, she got what she
deserved. if innocent, she conceived seed.
That punishment for ADULTERY is a far cry from a woman
of today, who can get an abortion for any reason whatsoever,
married or unmarried. It's a far cry from going to a priest,
and standing before the Lord, and receiving his justice, and
going to an abortionist, mostly for the sake of convenience,
and having the PREBORN, burned, ripped up and out, or partially
delivered, then stabbed at the base of the skull, and having
his brains sucked out.
And it shows that the argument that Christianity, or Christianity's
Bible, forbids abortion is just something that Christians made up.
You are PREGNANT with lies in your attempt to justify abortion on
demand using your eisigesis of Num. 5:11-31. God commanding
that justice be done, and man taking things into his own hands are
not synonymus. You don't believe, and you don't understand.
Do you understand?
Yes, I understand that Christians have made up some Biblical ban on
abortion that's CONTRADICTED by the Bible.
No, you don't.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world
insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
09 Nov 2006 07:33:31 PM |
|
|
On 9 Nov 2006 16:36:55 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 8 Nov 2006 14:11:50 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 8 Nov 2006 09:10:52 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 7 Nov 2006 16:24:38 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Numbers 5:11-31
So you KNOW that your Bible CONDONES abortion, yet you call anyone not
opposed to it names?
I agree with Curt, using Num. 5:11-31 is a stretch. I just
cited Book, chapter and verses for him because you didn't
or couldn't.
I chose not to and it's not, unless you like to "interpret" your Bible
to say whatever you want it to say - which would make you a Christian.
Your pathetic attempt to interpret the Bible
No interpretation needed - that's YOUR group's hobby. I can read
words and accept what they say with no need to "interpret" them to
mean something other than what they say.
And spinning scripture to suit your group's evil agenda is yours.
Where's the spinning. Your god told Moses (it's in the Bible, so it's
his word) that if a man suspects that his wife cheated on him she
should be rendered barren, which would abort any fetus she was
carrying. Period. End of story. No interpretation. No spin.
Your understanding is darkened because you are an unbeliever
and, as such, you lack spiritual discernment. You are simply a
natural man with a souless, worldly view of scripture.
Oh, *****. You don't need to believe to understand. They're
words, just like any other words. If your god is so simple-minded
that he can't make human beings understand him, his mommy needs to
wipe his nose.
is arrogant in the extreme.
What's arrogant is your pretense that you're a sane human adult. You
miss on all three counts.
What's arrogant is your pretense that you, a worldly, natural man, are
qualified to explain spiritual things.
I'm an adult, little girl, and you're not, so OF COURSE I can explain
things that I understand to you, who understand almost nothing.
And causes her to lose any fetus that may be growing inside her belly.
That does not give us a license to usurp his authority, and play God.
It may or it may not. He DEFINITELY forbids us to do the things he
doesn't want us to do. He leaves abortion up to the husband. The
husband isn't forced to bring his wife to the temple, it's his option.
So he gives us at least part of the choice and doesn't forbid
abortion.
Bottom line - you can't use the Bible to prohibit abortion without a
lot of twisting and making things up. There's a big gray area between
"go and do whatever you want" and "you may not do this thing". But
the gray area is not a prohibition. He FORBIDS you to eat pork. He
FORBIDS you to wear clothing of mixed fabric. He FORBIDS you to dress
like a man (to wear pants). He doesn't forbid abortions. So why do
you have a problem with abortions, but not with the dozens of things
you're forbidden to do that you do anyway?
In other words, just so maybe it sinks into that stone skull of yours,
HE DOESN'T FORBID ABORTION, HE CAUSES IT!
All souls are his. He is God, and we are not.
No prohibition of abortion, unconditional prohibition against eating
pork.
Everything is done in accordance with the Lord's instructions.
So your god's instructions DON'T forbid abortions, they CONDONE THEM,
but only on the condition that THE MAN WANTS THEM! Moron. You just
destroyed BOTH of your arguments.
No, Al, this is not abortion on demand as your diseased mind would
have it. The man had to suspect his wife of unfaithfulness
So he demands an abortion. Looks pretty much like "on demand" to me -
but on the demand of the MAN, not the demand of his property.
and she had to be proven guility of same.
You really believe that an abortifacient wouldn't work just because
the fetus is his? We know a little more biology than they did 3,500
years ago. An abortifacient will cause an abortion (if it doesn't
kill the woman outright) regardless of who she's been sleeping with.
So it was abortion on demand - the demand of the only person your god
considered important - the MAN. If you're a woman you shouldn't be
trying to teach a MAN anything - your god forbids it! If you don't
shut your mouth, like a proper obedient piece of property, and accept
my teaching, you prove yourself to be a hypocrite.
Your move.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit
priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies
about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and
have always been an atheist."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945,
responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein
to convert from atheism. Article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic
magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
| User: "willow" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
09 Nov 2006 08:59:01 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 9 Nov 2006 16:36:55 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 8 Nov 2006 14:11:50 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 8 Nov 2006 09:10:52 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 7 Nov 2006 16:24:38 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Numbers 5:11-31
So you KNOW that your Bible CONDONES abortion, yet you call anyone not
opposed to it names?
I agree with Curt, using Num. 5:11-31 is a stretch. I just
cited Book, chapter and verses for him because you didn't
or couldn't.
I chose not to and it's not, unless you like to "interpret" your Bible
to say whatever you want it to say - which would make you a Christian.
Your pathetic attempt to interpret the Bible
No interpretation needed - that's YOUR group's hobby. I can read
words and accept what they say with no need to "interpret" them to
mean something other than what they say.
And spinning scripture to suit your group's evil agenda is yours.
Where's the spinning. Your god told Moses (it's in the Bible, so it's
his word) that if a man suspects that his wife cheated on him she
should be rendered barren, which would abort any fetus she was
carrying. Period. End of story. No interpretation. No spin.
Your understanding is darkened because you are an unbeliever
and, as such, you lack spiritual discernment. You are simply a
natural man with a souless, worldly view of scripture.
Oh, *****. You don't need to believe to understand. They're
words, just like any other words. If your god is so simple-minded
that he can't make human beings understand him, his mommy needs to
wipe his nose.
is arrogant in the extreme.
What's arrogant is your pretense that you're a sane human adult. You
miss on all three counts.
What's arrogant is your pretense that you, a worldly, natural man, are
qualified to explain spiritual things.
I'm an adult, little girl, and you're not, so OF COURSE I can explain
things that I understand to you, who understand almost nothing.
And causes her to lose any fetus that may be growing inside her belly.
That does not give us a license to usurp his authority, and play God.
It may or it may not. He DEFINITELY forbids us to do the things he
doesn't want us to do. He leaves abortion up to the husband. The
husband isn't forced to bring his wife to the temple, it's his option.
So he gives us at least part of the choice and doesn't forbid
abortion.
Bottom line - you can't use the Bible to prohibit abortion without a
lot of twisting and making things up. There's a big gray area between
"go and do whatever you want" and "you may not do this thing". But
the gray area is not a prohibition. He FORBIDS you to eat pork. He
FORBIDS you to wear clothing of mixed fabric. He FORBIDS you to dress
like a man (to wear pants). He doesn't forbid abortions. So why do
you have a problem with abortions, but not with the dozens of things
you're forbidden to do that you do anyway?
In other words, just so maybe it sinks into that stone skull of yours,
HE DOESN'T FORBID ABORTION, HE CAUSES IT!
All souls are his. He is God, and we are not.
No prohibition of abortion, unconditional prohibition against eating
pork.
Everything is done in accordance with the Lord's instructions.
So your god's instructions DON'T forbid abortions, they CONDONE THEM,
but only on the condition that THE MAN WANTS THEM! Moron. You just
destroyed BOTH of your arguments.
No, Al, this is not abortion on demand as your diseased mind would
have it. The man had to suspect his wife of unfaithfulness
So he demands an abortion. Looks pretty much like "on demand" to me -
but on the demand of the MAN, not the demand of his property.
and she had to be proven guility of same.
You really believe that an abortifacient wouldn't work just because
the fetus is his? We know a little more biology than they did 3,500
years ago. An abortifacient will cause an abortion (if it doesn't
kill the woman outright) regardless of who she's been sleeping with.
So it was abortion on demand - the demand of the only person your god
considered important - the MAN. If you're a woman you shouldn't be
trying to teach a MAN anything - your god forbids it! If you don't
shut your mouth, like a proper obedient piece of property, and accept
my teaching, you prove yourself to be a hypocrite.
Your move.
As I wrote, you are not qualified to interpret scripture because of
your
unbelief. The spiritual aspect of the Word is totally lost on you. As
an unbeliever you are unqualified to teach. You're delusional if you
think anyone at all is your property. You slaver mindset betrays you
again.
Don't preach to me until you repent, become converted, and are
properly instructed in the Christian faith. Then, with the help of
God, you will be qualified to straighten me out. I won't be
holding my breath.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit
priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies
about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and
have always been an atheist."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945,
responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein
to convert from atheism. Article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic
magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
10 Nov 2006 11:00:50 AM |
|
|
"willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net> wrote in message
snip
Don't preach to me until you repent, become converted, and are
properly instructed in the Christian faith. Then, with the help of
God, you will be qualified to straighten me out. I won't be
holding my breath.
LOL! You're a joke.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
10 Nov 2006 03:04:12 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 12:00:50 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net> wrote in message
snip
Don't preach to me until you repent, become converted, and are
properly instructed in the Christian faith. Then, with the help of
God, you will be qualified to straighten me out. I won't be
holding my breath.
LOL! You're a joke.
You left out a word Robyn - it starts with "si" and ends with "ck" and
has 4 letters.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Never in human history have such genocide and cruelty been
witnessed. Such a genocide was never seen in the time of the pharaohs nor
of Hitler nor of Mussolini."
- Mehmet Elkatmi, head of Turkish parliament's human rights commission
on Bush's genocide in the Iraq war. 11-28-2004
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
09 Nov 2006 10:52:48 PM |
|
|
On 9 Nov 2006 18:59:01 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
As I wrote, you are not qualified to interpret scripture because of
your unbelief.
Since you, as a woman, aren't qualified to comment on scripture,
that's totally immaterial.
So you stand an admitted hypocrite. Allow me to introduce you to a
REAL god, Plonk. He really does what his followers claim he can do.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he
unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
| User: "willow" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
10 Nov 2006 10:37:55 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 9 Nov 2006 18:59:01 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
As I wrote, you are not qualified to interpret scripture because of
your unbelief.
Since you, as a woman, aren't qualified to comment on scripture,
that's totally immaterial.
So you stand an admitted hypocrite. Allow me to introduce you to a
REAL god, Plonk. He really does what his followers claim he can do.
So, you worship your ***** god, Plonk. It's definitely one of your
many
delusions. You hallucinate about sky pixies, (Al, there are no such
beings) and dead Jews on sticks who can think for people. Are you
anti-Jewish too? You rave about fairy tales in old books; Darwin's?
Take your meds on a regular basis, or they will be coming to take you
away, away.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he
unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
10 Nov 2006 10:04:28 PM |
|
|
willow <willowrun06@comcast.net> wrote:
As I wrote, you are not qualified to interpret scripture because of
your
unbelief.
The arrogance of the religious hypocrite. They expect everybody to
follow their book, but only what they claim their book says.
The spiritual aspect of the Word is totally lost on you.
You've been corrupted by your church. All you have to offer is hate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
10 Nov 2006 10:02:49 PM |
|
|
willow <willowrun06@comcast.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 8 Nov 2006 09:10:52 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 7 Nov 2006 16:24:38 -0800, "willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
wrote:
Numbers 5:11-31
So you KNOW that your Bible CONDONES abortion, yet you call anyone not
opposed to it names?
I agree with Curt, using Num. 5:11-31 is a stretch. I just
cited Book, chapter and verses for him because you didn't
or couldn't.
I chose not to and it's not, unless you like to "interpret" your Bible
to say whatever you want it to say - which would make you a Christian.
Your pathetic attempt to interpret the Bible is arrogant in the
extreme.
Good thing that you would never do anything like that.
And yes, that is sarcasm.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for doctors, pro-liars urge |
08 Nov 2006 12:13:44 PM |
|
|
willow <willowrun06@comcast.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
"willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
Numbers 5:11-31
So you KNOW that your Bible CONDONES abortion, yet you call anyone not
opposed to it names?
I agree with Curt, using Num. 5:11-31 is a stretch.
Why? It clearly describes a forced abortion.
Are you one of those cafeteria christians who picks and
chooses from the Bible?
Shall we count the number of sins you committed?
If you count your own, you will find little or no time to
enumerate mine, so put down your stones.
Good to see you decide to be pro-choice.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for doctors, pro-liars urge |
08 Nov 2006 02:03:25 PM |
|
|
On 08 Nov 2006 18:13:44 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
willow <willowrun06@comcast.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
"willow" <willowrun06@comcast.net>
Numbers 5:11-31
So you KNOW that your Bible CONDONES abortion, yet you call anyone not
opposed to it names?
I agree with Curt, using Num. 5:11-31 is a stretch.
Why? It clearly describes a forced abortion.
Are you one of those cafeteria christians who picks and
chooses from the Bible?
Isn't that what "Christian" means?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
07 Nov 2006 01:46:00 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:56:08 -0800, "Curt" <cje@hevanet.com> wrote:
Now that's interesting. Where did you find that? I only found the one that
if two men strive and one knocketh a woman and she loseth her fetus, the men
have to pay a fine to the father. Or something like that.
Exactly like that - since the fetus is not a person, it's the property
of the father, as is the woman herself.
I haven't run
across anything about intentional abortion at all. And I'm sure the
procedure was known in those days.
We know that it was known at least 35,000 years ago.
Although they probably ate something horrible to accomplish it, or something.
The bible says that if a man suspects his wife of being unfaithful, he
should take her to the temple, where a priest will make her drink a
concoction that will render her sterile if she was unfaithful, the
idea being that the man shouldn't have to assume responsibility for
children that aren't his. (You know who the mother is - you only
know who the father is if you keep the wife under close enough control
that she can't cheat.) If she's pregnant when this is done, she's
going to abort. Which is perfect because that's another child the
father doesn't have to worry about not being his.
The Bible tells us to be like lions and kill the child of another
father - while it's still in the womb, yet! So where does it tell us
that abortion isn't allowed? It doesn't.
Christians make this crap up, then claim that it came from their Bible
and won't even READ the book to see how wrong they are. They've made
their minds up, so reality has to be what they claim it is, and if you
can prove that they're wrong they'll just close their ears or, at
best, try to prove that you're wrong with some other not-Biblical
nonsense. VERY few Christians really know their own Bible, or are
aware that most of Christianity's rules DON'T come from the Bible.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be under-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen" |
|
| Title: Re: Allow 'active euthanasia' for disabled babies, doctors urge |
05 Nov 2006 10:49:38 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Where will this fascination with killing babies end with these so called
'pro-choice' lunatics? Are toddlers next on the list? How about teenagers?
Life begins at conception and should be treated sacred as such.
All scientific knowledge shows that humans are always human.
Pro-abortionists, on the other hand, say that whether they're human or
not depends on whether they want to kill them.
Stephen G Wilson
The Loving Family Bedroom
http://uk.geocities.com/synette_jeline/grouprules.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
